Times Op-Ed: The Only Issue That Matters is Stopping Dirty Bomb Attack In NY or DC
This op-ed by Jeff Goldberg is definitely worth a read.
He writes that experts believe that there is a 20-50% chance of a WMD attack on a major American city over the next decade. He is referring to the so-called "dirty bomb." He maintains that A-Q is seeking a weapon and will deploy it when it can. (He says that smuggling it into the US should not be hard; just hide it in a cocaine shipment).
He also points out that the Bush administration has not only done nothing to defend us against an attack but has made things worse. In addition to the pointless slaughter, the Iraq war is also a giant diversion from the real threat. And now the Bush administration is suspending nuclear cooperation with Russia to punish Russia for its intervention in Geogia. Typical idiocy).
Anyway, Goldberg says that the possibility of attack by A-Q is the greatest threat to us all.
Certainly it's a bigger threat than Iran or Hamas which the right likes to scaremonger over. Iran, of course, has no interest in hitting the American homeland and, even if it did, would be deterred by our nuclear arsenal. Hamas is only interested in Israel/Palestine; it is wonderfully parochial in that regard. Nor is it known to be interested in WMD's which, obviously, cannot be used with impunity in an area as small as Israel/Palestine. But A-Q wants us dead and has nothing to lose; nor can we hit back as we can with a state.
But none of this seems to bother the neocons and the rightwingers.
What is wrong with them? Why have they shown themselves to be so consistently pro-Al Qaeda since 9/11? Why did Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith struggle to convince Bush to go after Iraq on 9/12 when the rest of us were going nuts over what A-Q did to our country? Most important, does McCain agree with them?














I just don't agree that an AQ dirty bomb attack is any sort of big threat.
If anyone sets off a dirty bomb in the US it'll probably be an angry white guy. I'm far more worried about more Tim McVeighs than I am about more 9/11s.
September 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't be because MJ lives in one of those upscale D.C. neighborhoods which are also home to the most well-known Jewish neocons and therefore prime targets?
The man is beneath despicable.
September 9, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are a troll and beneath contempt. Just wanted everyone else to know it too, though it's obvious by the wanton ignorance of your comment.
September 9, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
lapiltz,
he's the most vicious, insulting person I've ever encountered online, and the thing is, its all unwarranted.
He actually seems to go out of his way to be vicious.
September 9, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you claim to hate the "America haters."
When you are the best example I've seen yet.
September 9, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
Of course I agree with you that it isn't the only thing that matters, but as so often seems to happen with you, you are mistaking the opinions of the post MJ highlighted for his own opinions. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
September 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ nedbalzar
Perhaps. But MJ retitled Goldberg's essay and completely distorted its meaning. For example, Goldberg, in his lead paragraph says
That's America. Not rich, cowardly, selfish yidland.
September 9, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder you love this Adminstration.
Propangandists and bigots do love to promote the idea that the next terrorist strike will be a petting zoo in Iowa, as revealed by the DHS allocation of resources.
September 9, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
How about the Long Beach or Los Angeles harbors? Hollywood? The Golden Gate Bridge? Glen Canyon or Hoover Dams? One of the big General Motors of Ford plants in the Industrial heartland? Google or Microsoft or some prime area of Silicon Valley?
You pathetic, ignorant rube...and you think you're smart.
September 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you read with a Goebbels-like mind, your interpretation makes perfect sense.
September 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says;
"blockquote> That's America. Not rich, cowardly, selfish yidland.
"yidland"? What's yidland?
September 9, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
should read;
offensivetoyou says;
"yidland"? What's yidland?
September 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says;
"blockquote> That's America. Not rich, cowardly, selfish yidland.
"yidland"? What's yidland?
September 9, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent question.
We will see if he is capable of owning up to his racism.
September 9, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
Yidland is home country for rich, cowardly selfish yids. I'm entitled to say that because I am a yid - but not rich, cowardly or selfish...
Neither am I blinded by political correctness...
There are terrible people of all racial, ethnic and religious groups; white trash, trailer trash, spics, beaners, niggers, ragheads...and, yes, kikes.
Harsh, and often unfair and insensitive to others of the same group, to call them out but sometimes justified.
September 9, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
yes, but where is yidland located?
September 9, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ johnwjackass
The context answers that, doesn't it?
Or, using only a little brain power, one could easily conclude that it has no exact physical location, that it describes certain neighborhoods, or parts of neighborhoods where such people live, and does so only to the extent it describes their execrable behavior.
I know you're stupid...but not that stupid. You're just trying to bait me. To what end? What beliefs are you trying to attribute to me?
September 9, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
but where are these neighborhoods? Do you live in one of these neighborhoods?
September 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ johnwjackass
No. I don't. The only such neighborhood I know of is the one surrounding MJ's house. I'm sure there are others.
September 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
Your attacks on M.J. are unwarranted. And do you no credit. It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. If you must be disagreeable, be funny.
Remember: original sin is much more enjoyable than the ho-hum conventional kind.
September 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ z2v
I can't be funny about MJ. I wish I could.
September 9, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says;
No you don't.
September 9, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry pal, the despicable one is Goldberg.
He's among the war-floggers. In 2002, he helped push the meme that Doug Feith(aka "the stupidest fucking guy on the planet" - Gen. T. Franks) was hawking - that Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac who absolutely positively had nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that he was about to use against us RIGHT NOW and we better invade before it's tool late!!11!!!!
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/01/betting_on_iraq_5.php
This is just the next verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and a whole lot stupider.
September 10, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I saw the headlines about Bush severing the nuclear cooperation agreement as a "punishment," I became irate, as I usually do when I see the Administration inflicting yet another incredibly dangerous stupidity on the nation. To the point, I mean, of actually not reading the stories. Because I am well aware of how dangerously stupid it is, and I realize we are stuck with anti-American incompetents at least until January, and possibly for all eternity if the ignorant hothead McCain takes over.
Bush's incredible negligence is a topic that books have been written about, and that will be the marvel of wondering historians for millenia, amazed that while no Republic could protect Rome from Caligula, we could have what purports to be a functional State and a Constitution, and yet neither could prevent us from electing Caligula twice.
Thank you for writing this, M.J. Despite raising my blood pressure.
September 9, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do I think Russia should be rewarded. NO. Let's kill some of their sled dogs. That'll shut them up.
September 9, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, on Sept. 13th many people were wrong about the source of the attacks.
It's a good thing we didn't go off half cocked on 9/14 and retaliate against Iraq when we didn't know the perpetrators, yet.
September 9, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter242 says:
September 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's keep things in proportion - we are each far more likely to die in a car crash, from heart disease or cancer, than from any type of terrorist action. Not to dismiss that possibility, but we can't allow it to define us or our government.
September 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The people who have made this the defining feature of our so-called 'nation' are the people who work overtime selling it to us, manufacturing phony threats while letting real ones multiply.
The Administration does use the dangers they promote as a political instrument. They did not make mistakes going into Iraq. The terrorist training ground established there serves somebody's purposes admirably.
By the way, did anyone catch the video from AQ accusing the U.S. and Iran being in cahoots?
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080909/NEWS07/809090372
One truly has to marvel at the disinformation economy we live in.
September 9, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are we sure it's not Jonah?
September 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We certainly need smarter and cooler heads to prevail in order to marshal the international effort it will take to deal with the terrorism problem for the foreseeable future.
That certainly doesn't mean McCain and his Bridge To Armageddon ticket (with his 'Jesus Camp' vice presidential nominee)!
After a while, with adequate international cooperation (in absence of fear of one's country being invaded by and/or conspired against by the USA), the current round of terrorism will recede, as did the Baader-Meinhoff and Red Army Brigade terrorism as well as the Japanese cult terrorism.
Just quit invading countries already!
Quit propping up nefarious dictators, the oil variety or otherwise!
Stop encircling Russia like it's the Cold War - everyone knows the neo-chrons just want Russia's oil and gas! Get over it already. Didn't we rob Russia blind enough under Clinton?! Half a trillion dollars worth of their resources?!
Be brave enough to be a nation like everyone else, fellow USAers, who have to live within their own means; and quit exploiting and manipulating other nations. It's wrong and it doesn't work any longer! Be smart. Walk softly and carry big diplomacy.
Muscle we already have! We've done it to DEATH!
September 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...adequate international cooperation" is the only reality-based solution to non-national terrorist threat.
The Taliban - at the moment joined-at-the-hip to AQ - is present in, for all practical purposes, every country in the world. Their goal is, to quote them, to rule the world. Nut cakes for sure but thanks to Saudi and other un-named Emirate zillionaires, they're financially able to do a helluvalot of hit-and-miss damage.
There is a powerful faction in the Republican Party (think Bolton etal) who has been campaigning for years for the dissolution of the UN, apparently replacing it with no other international body. It can be assumed that if we return the Republicans to power, at our peril adequate international cooperation will be off the table.
September 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Didn't we rob Russia blind enough under Clinton?!
If anyone robbed Russia blind in the 9os it was their own oligarchs, most if them former Communist apparachiks whi came out of the events of 1991 well placed to feather their nests.
September 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
BULLSH*T SCAREMONGERING.
Actually, anyone who actually knows something about nuclear physics would laugh his head off about the new "scare" of the "Dirty Bomb".
Here are some FACTS:
This is good for a hollywood plot line, but in reality there are much more ORDINARY things to worry about which we're totally ignoring -- like the state of our transportation infrastructure.
September 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fear and panic created should not be underestimated. The fear and panic created by 9/11 will be a walk in the park compared to what would result from a "nuclear" dirty bomb detonation. The average citizen isn't going to understand the difference, and those who would take advantage of the situation to cement themselves into positions of power aren't going to explain it to them, they're going to use it to generate even more fear and panic. A dirty bomb would be likely to turn America into a police state for the foreseeable future.
September 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
BULLSH*T SCAREMONGERING.
Actually, anyone who actually knows something about nuclear physics would laugh his head off about the new "scare" of the "Dirty Bomb".
Here are some FACTS:
This is good for a hollywood plot line, but in reality there are much more ORDINARY things to worry about which we're totally ignoring -- like the state of our transportation infrastructure.
September 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well if that is the only issue that matters then lets flush the Constitution and make Petraeus King.
Why is this idea floated NOW? Who benefits? Who benefits politically or economically? Who benefits from the political or emotional reaction to this scenario? And the last is key because it is going to be primarily an irrational reaction for many people.
Preparing for significant risks is an everyday task for individuals and our government. Fixating on worse case scenarios right before an election is a whole nother ball game.
September 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'm not that worried. You need to disperse the "dirty" material, and that requires some know-how.
September 9, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goldberg's thesis is similar to that of Suskind's
The Way of the World except that Suskind's emphasis is on a terrorist obtain fissile material from poorly guarded Russian stockpiles.
I call that the Nut with a nuke and find it sufficiently convincing that I question our current Georian policy. We don't need to permit Putin to overrun Georgia. We do need to ensure that defending Georgia's proper interests (as opposed to its "geographic integrity" does not conflict with our overriding interest in dealing with this problem .
September 9, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
But as Suskind well knows, implementing such a policy requires leaders who are willing to act in America's own interest, and we do not have that at present.
September 9, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goldberg's thesis is similar to that of Suskind's
The Way of the World except that Suskind's emphasis is on a terrorist obtain fissile material from poorly guarded Russian stockpiles.
I call that the Nut with a nuke and find it sufficiently convincing that I question our current Georgian policy. We don't need to permit Putin to overrun Georgia but do need to ensure that defending Georgia's proper interests (as opposed to its "geographic integrity" does not conflict with our overriding interest in dealing with this problem .
September 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of a thermonuclear detonation, Goldberg is simply wrong that once you have fissile material the rest is easy. How many hundreds of millions have North Korea and Iran spent on trying to develop a single nuclear device? Who in the "nuclear club" does Goldberg believe is going to hand such a device over to terrorists? On what evidence?
September 9, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg did the author a service when he retitled the piece.
Goldberg is ignorant and scaremongering.
'Dirty bombs' are actual threats, and quite bad enough.
And the author is entirely wrong when he says that a 'law enforcement' approach is misguided. In fact virtually everything in the article itself is wrong.
What is correct is Rosenberg's own observation that our Russia policy is designed to produce the threats it then requires more scaremongering and Constitutional suspension to 'counter.'
Not to mention building, at enormous expense, an Eastern European Maginot Line (against Iran, Russia, whatever) that will be precisely as useful as its predecessor in serving any useful purpose.
I took Rosenberg's own point to be that this Administration does nothing to protect us from actual threats, and does so at enormous cost: to our liberties, our economy, and indeed our safety itself. (I mean "cost" in both its senses, of course.)
September 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
An executed attack is much less likely than an attempt. All the more reason to get rid of the corrupt and incompetent Republicans before more people die and they use that as an excuse to pitch the Constitution altogether.
Imagine how we could have crushed AQ had we spent all the money we've blown destroying the nation of Iraq on hunting down our true enemies and smashing them?
September 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
An executed attack is much less likely than an attempt. All the more reason to get rid of the corrupt and incompetent Republicans before more people die and they use that as an excuse to pitch the Constitution altogether.
Imagine how we could have crushed AQ had we spent all the money we've blown destroying the nation of Iraq on hunting down our true enemies and smashing them?
September 9, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would have been far cheaper (on the order of trillions) just to kill bin Laden when we had the chance.
But then what excuse would we have had for the GWOT (product of Republican marketing genius, rhymes with 'snot')? What excuse would we have had for warrantless wiretapping, torture, and Occupations?
September 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right you are!
And don't forget the endless war spending to prop up the arms manufacturers and keep our economy down by wasting money on war production that does nobody any good at all except them who profits from death.
September 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right you are!
And don't forget the endless war spending to prop up the arms manufacturers and keep our economy down by wasting money on war production that does nobody any good at all except them who profits from death.
September 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
that article is BULLSHIT
it's a pathetic attempt to exonerate george bush by claiming that "NOBODY COULD HAVE KNOWN"
BULLSHIT
not a single mention of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, or the fact that george bush SAT ON HIS ASS FOR 35 DAYS WITHOUT TAKING A SINGLE FUCKING ACTION TO STOP THE ATTACK
don't try to tell me how hard it is to catch a fucking terrorist is you ain't gonna mention that george bush NEVER EVEN FUCKING TRIED TO CATCH THEM
EVEN AFTER HE WAS TOLD DIRECTLY THAT THE ATTACK WAS GOONA HAPPEN
ever read the speech that the condiliar was supposed to deliver on September 11, 2001 ???
I have
the condiliar was gonna tell us that the most serious threat to America was a rogue missile attack, and try selling the POS missile defense system
so unless the author wants to discuss george bush's criminal malfeasance and TOTAL INCOMPETENCE, he doesn't have the first fucking clue what he's talking about
September 9, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What is wrong with them? Why have they shown themselves to be so consistently pro-Al Qaeda since 9/11? Why did Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith struggle to convince Bush to go after Iraq on 9/12 when the rest of us were going nuts over what A-Q did to our country?" Vital questions, but nobody has yet mentioned that odd organization the Project for the New American Century, which during the 90s was cooking up plans for world domination. It was the alumni of PNAC who seized the opportunity on 9/12 to exploit 9/11 to achieve their long held goals. What was their prime motive? US power? Revenge for Vietnam? Sticking it to the peaceniks? Money for arms contractors? Preventing a two-state solution in Israel? Apocalyptic religious beliefs? Some combination of these, no doubt.
September 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest, the threat of a dirty bomb attack anywhere is very negligible. The US military itself concluded that such a device would more than likely hurt no one if proper clean-up procedures were undertaken. The real threat naturally is more conventional means of terrorism, or the potential for nuclear armaments to find their way into the wrong hands.
September 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
hence, M.J.'s Russia tie-in.
September 9, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. The article raises serious issues and makes some quite valid points but its conclusion -- the author can't decide whether Obama or McCain will better keep America safe -- betrays an incomprehension of the big picture. Everything McCain advocates is just what Bush has been doing since 9/11: more Iraq, more belligerence, more ignorance. All of which will inevitably lead to more anti-Americanism around the globe. And that is our greatest threat. We will easily defeat al Qaeda once most of the world joins with us and turns against those barbarians. The McCain-Bush foreign policy makes it increasingly unlikely that the world will join with us, thereby raising the threat to the U.S.
September 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fear and panic created should not be underestimated. The fear and panic created by 9/11 will be a walk in the park compared to what would result from a "nuclear" dirty bomb detonation. The average citizen isn't going to understand the difference, and those who would take advantage of the situation to cement themselves into positions of power aren't going to explain it to them, they're going to use it to generate even more fear and panic. A dirty bomb would be likely to turn America into a police state for the foreseeable future.
September 9, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far the only people creating "fear and panic" are the ones scaremongering about "dirty bombs".
September 9, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far the only people creating "fear and panic" are the whackos who scaremonger about how "dirty bombs" are about to go off in our cities.
September 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far the only people creating "fear and panic" are the whackos who scaremonger about how "dirty bombs" are about to go off in our cities.
September 9, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only RegularJoes's experienced "fear and panic" -- at least the panic part -- on 9/11.
But that's long been a problem of sheeple.
September 9, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a correction: Goldberg is *not* talking about a dirty bomb (conventional explosives packed with radioactive material, to cause radioactive contamination in the detonation area). He's talking about a nuclear explosion, a la Hiroshima. Which is far harder to achieve, because it requires highly refined uranium, or plutonium.
That said, the Bush administration's move to pull out of fissile-material security cooperation efforts with the Russians is potentially disastrous, since that's the most likely source of rogue uranium or plutonium for terrorists. Never mind about punishing or rewarding the Russians -- this is about punishing *us*.
Peace,
Paul
September 9, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still worried about Al Qaeda dropping anthrax on our cities using crop dusters. They were so sneaky that they eluded the 'best efforts' of the FBI for 7 years and then set up Bruce Ivins to take the fall. Diabolical!
September 9, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
...where is yidland located?
Right outside Jew York, of course!!
September 9, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Shooter you mentioned that no one would set off a nuclear explosion that would leave a trail back to the source. I was once told, by a person who claimed expertise, that our experts can tell the source of fissionable material by the radiocative isotopes that are left behind. Evidently, Russia's nukes can be distinquished from Britains, etc. You also remarked "who would we nuke in return?" I would think some of our Presidents would shoot first then ask questions. I think it is pretty certain that if a nuclear explosion goes off in this country before January, that Iran and Syria will be destroyed. Our people will shout from the roof tops for revenge, and they will get it.
@ O2U Got to hand it to you, you tell it like it is. There is never any trouble telling which side of the fence you are on. However, please, easy on the Trailertrash. OK?
September 9, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the contributors to TPM argue/claim that it is highly unlikely that a nuclear explosion will go off in the United States. I just don't see it that way. Google General Alexander Lebed, former Russian Security Council Secretary, and follow the threads that sprout from his name. Some of the information is reactionary and speculative, but much of it is expert and very alarming. Obtaining a nuclear device may not be as much of a hill climb as we would hope.
September 9, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Law enforcement was obviously unable to prevent the second World Trade Center attack . . . . Jeff Goldberg (emphasis added)
Anyone who makes a conclusory factual assertion which is central to his argument but which is left to stand unsupported by a scintilla of evidence doesn't deserve to be published in The Times.
Note: Obama isn't arguing in favor of turning the "war" over to the fat, desk-bound law enforcement careerists and opportunists former administrations and Congresses thought were adequate. Is he?
September 9, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please read The Dark Side.
The spooks kept the law enforcement team in the dark about the 9/11 bombers.
And then read \Torture Team.
Then you may criticize law enforcement efforts.
September 10, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
Sorry. I meant to yell at Goldberg. I am embarrassed.
z2v
September 10, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all; it's a fair cop!
But even after agreeing that the CIA -- another bunch of fat desk-bound careerists -- withheld information from the FBI, I continue to maintain that the FBI is and has been broken for years.
September 10, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The FBI is not as good as it could be. Far from it. But not every fibbie is incompetent, Torture Team is very even-handed. There is still a lot of cerebral sclerosis at the big desks in the Hoover Building. What was the name of the FBI lawyer who thought a pilot who wanted to learn to fly a 747 without wasting time on take-off or landing should have his computer searched? And will we ever know the name of the fat-ass who turned her down?
September 10, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the kind of attack Jeffrey Goldberg is referring to is not a "dirty bomb" (i.e. a conventional explosive device containing radioactive materials) but an actual nuclear warhead, stolen (or purchased) from a factory that once formed part of the Soviet military-industrial complex and is now under the control of any one of a number of independent Muslim republics. That is why we should be afraid of Dick Cheney's current chest-puffing in Georgia and his administration's reckless cutting-off of nuclear proliferation negotiations with Russia -- and why we should Be Very Afraid to elect John ("We Are All Georgians") McCain.
September 9, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Russians have several thousand nukes. There is an equal danger if Pakistan disintegrates.
September 10, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ's posts always receive lots of comments, half of which turn out to be arguments over MJ's characterization or interpretation of something he's read and linked to.
MJ's bright, but I'm convinced he's dyslexic.
September 10, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Ellen Your use of the term dyslexic is curious, in that it fits with a strange thought I have had. Let me add some more fuel to that fire. Should we not at least wonder if MJ and O2U are one and the same person? Please, O2U, don't cuss me out. I enjoy your comments. But something isn't right about the exchanges between the two.
September 10, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ faroff
I'm glad you do but I have nothing to add. I call them as I see them (or feel them) and, as you know, I'm no fan of psychobabble.
September 10, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink